The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm in your camp, but not aggressive about it. I feel like it's one of many unfortunate byproducts of trying to run God's church in the telestial world.

Put a poll up with some of the main ideas and let's see how it breaks down. I'd guess more than you think are in your camp.

I know a lot are in my camp.

And I know the numbers are increasing, versus when I was talking about this on cougarboard originally (I signed up there end of 2001).

The work is rolling forward. Or in my favored parlance: it is viral.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I know a lot are in my camp.

And I know the numbers are increasing, versus when I was talking about this on cougarboard originally (I signed up there end of 2001).

The work is rolling forward. Or in my favored parlance: it is viral.

Good luck and if you succeed you won't be offended if I think the leaders succumbed to political pressure for PR reasons.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

...

Mike, I am afraid I have to side with Indy here. I love your passion and I agree with the main points made by you and Adam but some of the heroic martyr rhetoric in this thread has my eyes rolling.

[MikeWaters]

Based on my experience in the Bishopric, as Exec. Sec., and perhaps this makes me biased, I think a Bishopric is more effective and safer when there are 5 meeting, and not just 3 meeting. It is at its most unsafe, when there is only person unilaterally making decisions.

And frankly that's why it is set up that way. To guard against human frailty, even if well-intentioned.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Mike, I am afraid I have to side with Indy here. I love your passion and I agree with the main points made by you and Adam but some of the heroic martyr rhetoric in this thread has my eyes rolling.

I'm not the hero. Talk to the man who lost his job at BYU. He's the hero.

But let's go back to pretending that there are no consequences to speaking the truth. It's a much more pleasant reality.

[SeattleUte]

Those of you who think the priesthood ban may have had divine origin but pat yourselves for believing the world isn't 6,000 years old think about this. Hand in hand with the ban as taught by Mormonism's prophets and apostles was the story that blacks were descendants of Cain. The idea that a whole reace of people descened from an Old Testament character like Cain, such as Arabs descending from Ishmael, is so fanciful even quaint that, honestly, it belongs in a prior epoch. Not the modern United States of America.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Btw, for all you that are thinking Adam and I are just being arrogant....

Do you think it is FUN to be part of an organization that you are convinced made an egregious mistake, and almost none of the members share your opinion?

Do you think this is enjoyable?

The emotions are frustration and sadness and loneliness.

Thank God for the man who willing to stand up and tell me "this wasn't from God, this was racist, and here's the reason I believe it."

Thank God that the truth is viral. It can't be stopped. I've planted a few seeds. Others have planted more. I wrote an article about this in the Student Review which was later archived on the net, and I was told was the most accessed article along with another one about the ban.

There is a strong hunger for the truth. I've seen it.

You don't have to believe the same thing as me. That's fine. But don't stand in the way. It's not going to work, I promise you. While I am frustrated, you will soon be much more frustrated.

I think you aren't just being arrogant. There is merit, a hell of a lot of it, to your opinion and perspective. But you both are smart enough to realize that if your desire to promulgate truth was as pure as you claim, you would not be arrogant. Your arrogance illuminates your desire to argue and troll for Tex, Indy et al.

I think the questioning and research is healthy. I have yet to come to my own personal opinion on the subject. I enjoy the insights but the dogmatic arrogance that your opinion is obviously so correct is fun to tweak.

I also think there are various issues at play.


1.) To what extent was the ban solely the result of institutional racism?
2.) If it was, is it fruitful to apologize?
3.) If it was, why do the leaders refuse to admit it today?
4.) Does it really matter and since the Church changed the policy?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Mike, I am afraid I have to side with Indy here. I love your passion and I agree with the main points made by you and Adam but some of the heroic martyr rhetoric in this thread has my eyes rolling.

Also didn't Sterling McMurrin beat MW to this position by about 40 years?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I think you aren't just being arrogant. There is merit, a hell of a lot of it, to your opinion and perspective. But you both are smart enough to realize that if your desire to promulgate truth was as pure as you claim, you would not be arrogant. Your arrogance illuminates your desire to argue and troll for Tex, Indy et al.

I think the questioning and research is healthy. I have yet to come to my own personal opinion on the subject. I enjoy the insights but the dogmatic arrogance that your opinion is obviously so correct is fun to tweak.

I also think there are various issues at play.


1.) To what extent was the ban solely the result of institutional racism?
2.) If it was, is it fruitful to apologize?
3.) If it was, why do the leaders refuse to admit it today?
4.) Does it really matter and since the Church changed the policy?

I was much more eloquent 6 years ago.

I'm losing my eloquence talking to the same idiots for 6 years. It's a personal failing, and I take full responsibility.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Or in my favored parlance: it is viral.

Something's viral, all right.